See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328190184

Effect of a soccer ball’s surface texture on its aerodynamics and trajectory

Article  in  Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology · October 2018
DOI: 10.1177/1754337118794561

CITATIONS READS

5 303

3 authors:

Sungchan Hong John Eric Goff

University of Tsukuba University of Lynchburg
75 PUBLICATIONS   258 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   385 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Takeshi Asai
University of Tsukuba
215 PUBLICATIONS   1,370 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sports Ball Aerodynamics View project

Teaching Sports Physics / Sports Engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sungchan Hong on 19 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article

Proc IMechE Part P:

J Sports Engineering and Technology
1–8
Effect of a soccer ball’s surface texture Ó IMechE 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
on its aerodynamics and trajectory sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1754337118794561
journals.sagepub.com/home/pip

Sungchan Hong1 , John Eric Goff2 and Takeshi Asai1

Abstract
The effect of a soccer ball’s surface texture on its aerodynamics and flight trajectory is not definitively known. For this
study, five soccer balls were used, each having 32 panels with different surface textures. Their aerodynamics were exam-
ined via wind-tunnel experiments and then several non-spin trajectories were calculated for each ball. The results
showed that the aerodynamic forces acting on a soccer ball change significantly depending on the surface texture of the
ball, which in turn influences flight trajectories. The study contributes to an understanding of how a soccer ball’s surface
influences the aerodynamics, which may impact the future design and development of soccer balls.

Keywords
Aerodynamics, football, soccer, surface texture, trajectory

Date received: 26 September 2017; accepted: 24 July 2018

Introduction the EURO 2016 Cup. With only modest changes in

A traditional soccer ball is composed of 32 panels (12
regular pentagonal panels and 20 regular hexagonal
panels). The ball’s surface structure has changed signifi-
cantly over time with the number of panels being
reduced from 14, to 8, to 6. The ball’s trajectory has
been shown1–3 to change with the number and orienta-
tion of the panels. Since the introduction of the official
ball (Telstar, 32-panel, adidas) in the 1970 FIFA World
Cup held in Mexico, similar 32-panel balls have been
used as official balls of the World Cup, up to the
Korea–Japan World Cup of 2002 (Fevernova, 32-
panel, adidas). After the 2002 World Cup, the shape
and design of the ball surface underwent substantial
changes with the present pattern quite different than a
traditional soccer ball. A 14-panel ball, the Teamgeist
by adidas, was used as the official ball for the German
World Cup held in 2006. The eight-panel Jabulani (adi-
das) ball was used in the 2010 South Africa World
Cup. The aerodynamics of the Jabulani ball was notice-
ably different from those of the conventional ball.1,2
Jabulani was replaced by the Tango 12, 32-panel, adi-
das ball for the EURO 2012 Cup.
In the 2014 Brazil World Cup, a ball consisting of
six panels (Brazuca, adidas) was used as the official ball
and was reported to have a more stable trajectory than
other official balls.1,2 As a result, a ball with similar
panels, but a slightly different surface texture (Beau
Jeu, six-panel, adidas), was used as the official ball in
color, the World Cup ball was typically used as the
official ball in league games that commenced after the
World Cup, as well as in the EURO Cup and the
FIFA Confederations Cup. Since 2006, however, there
has been a slight change in the surface texture of the
official ball (EURO PASS, 14-panel, adidas) used in
the EURO Cup, which is held 2 years after the World
Cup. The official ball used through 2006 had a smooth
surface. A soccer ball of modern design, having various
protrusion patterns on the ball surface, was used in the
EURO Cup of 2008. All the official balls of the EURO
Cup and World Cup since then have contained various
kinds of protrusions (see Figure 1 for photographic
images of sample surfaces for six balls).
Previous studies on soccer balls used various meth-
ods, such as wind-tunnel experiments and computa-
tionally determined flight trajectories.4–11 Studies have
also looked at roughness and the influence of panel fea-
tures, such as number, shape, and orientation, on ball
aerodynamics.12–17 There is, however, little
1
Institute of Health and Sports Science, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba,
Japan
2
Department of Physics, Lynchburg College, Lynchburg, VA, USA
Corresponding author:
Sungchan Hong, Institute of Health and Sports Science, University of
Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8574, Japan.
Email: hong.sungchan.fu@u.tsukuba.ac.jp
2 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)

Figure 1. Changes in the surface texture of modern soccer balls ((a) 2006 Germany World Cup ball; smooth texture, (b) 2008
EURO Cup ball; small pimple texture, (c) 2010 South Africa World Cup ball; wavelike rectangle texture, (d) 2012 EURO Cup ball;
small pimple texture, (e) Brazil World Cup 2014 ball; wavelike small pimple texture, and (f) 2016 EURO Cup ball; small square
texture).

understanding of the effect of the ball’s surface texture

on its aerodynamics and flight trajectory.
This study focused on the influence of surface tex-
ture on the aerodynamics and flight trajectory of five
32-panel soccer balls with different surface textures. All
five balls were made of the same leatherette (synthetic
materials) with panels attached by thermal bonding.
The aerodynamic forces for each ball were measured
with a wind tunnel in two different orientations. No-
spin flight trajectories were calculated using wind-
tunnel data.

Figure 2. Wind-tunnel setup.

Wind-tunnel experiment
The closed (return-flow) type, low-speed, low-
turbulence wind tunnel located at the University of
Tsukuba (San Technologies Co., Ltd.; Figure 2) was
used in this experiment.
The maximum wind speed was 55 m/s with a wind
speed distribution within 60.5%. The degree of turbu-
lence was less than 0.1%. The nozzle size was 1.5 m
3 1.5 m and the blockage of the measured soccer ball
was within 5% of the nozzle size. For example, when
the wind speed was set to 25 m/s, the measured mean
wind speed was 25.28 m/s with a standard deviation
from the measurement position in the range of 20.46 to
0.45 and a wind speed distribution within 60.5%.
Similarly, the degree of turbulence downstream of the
nozzle when the wind speed was 25 m/s was 0.05–0.06
or within approximately 60.1%. Thus, the error due to
the ball position was believed to have little effect on the
wind speed. Furthermore, in the measurement system
of this study, the dynamic pressure can be automatically
measured at 0.1 Pa intervals using a Pitot-static tube
placed above the measurement portion of the soccer
ball. In addition, because the position of the ball during
the measurement procedure was set at the center of the
nozzle cross section to adjust the distance between the
nozzle and the ball to zero, the flow generated from the
support sting and column may not have a direct effect
on the flow around the ball. Furthermore, the length of
the sting used in this study was 0.8 m and its width was
0.02 m. Moreover, because the effect of sting vibrations
is reduced to a small value by placing the six-
component force detector behind the soccer ball, the
magnitude of the sting forces was ignored in this study.
Wind speed ranged from 7 m/s (Re ’ 105) to 35 m/s
(Re ’ 5 3 105). Measurements were made for each of
the five types of balls shown in Figure 3 at wind-speed
intervals of 1 m/s for a duration of 10 s (1000 fps;
10,000 samples). Each of the five balls was then rotated
180° about an axis perpendicular to the images in
Figure 3.
The balls used in this study were classified into five
types, from A to E, according to the surface texture of
the ball. The surface of ball A had small square protru-
sions in a wavelike formation, whereas ball B was com-
posed of a dimpled pattern. The surface of ball C
consisted of small triangular protrusions, while ball D
Hong et al. 3

Figure 3. Surface textures of the soccer balls used in this study while in the 0° orientation. To obtain the 180° orientation, rotate
the images above by 180° about an axis perpendicular to the images (or flip this published page upside down). Ball A had waves of
square protrusions, ball B had a dimpled pattern, ball C had triangular protrusions, ball D had hexagonal textures, and ball E had
uniform squares.

had hexagons configured in the form of a honeycomb.
The surface of ball E was made up of evenly arranged
small rectangular protrusions. All balls had diameter
0.22 m and masses in the range 0.428 kg to 0.433 kg.
The inner gauge pressure of all balls was 9.0 psi. Non-
spinning balls were studied in the wind tunnel. As
shown in Figure 2, each ball had to be destroyed for
play when tested in a wind tunnel. All five balls had
one of their regular hexagons facing the oncoming air
(see orientation in Figure 3) to ensure that the balls
were oriented in the same way in the wind tunnel.
Because all the balls have a traditional 32-panel surface
structure, the surface texture was the focus of this
study. Differences in aerodynamic coefficients will
result from different features on the ball surfaces, not
from the arrangement of panels. The authors are aware
that the choice of ball orientation in the wind tunnel is
one of the infinite number of possible ball orientations.
The balls used in this study were manufactured in-house
and, as mentioned, had to be destroyed for play when
placed in the wind tunnel. Changing ball orientation
requires the manufacture of five new balls, a new round
of wind-tunnel testing, and then trajectory analyses.
Although it would be ideal to have a large supply of
balls to investigate many ball orientations, resources
and time limited the extent of the research. We urge the
reader to keep in mind that the results presented in the
next section are for two orientations of non-spinning
balls. This study represents a first pass at addressing the
contribution of surface texture on a soccer ball’s flight.
The aerodynamic forces acting on the soccer ball
were measured using a sting-type, six-component force
detector (LMC-61256, Nissho Electric Works).
Aerodynamic forces drag (D), lift (L), and side (S) were
converted to the drag coefficient (CD), lift coefficient
(CL), and side force coefficient (CS), as given by equa-
tions (1)–(3)
2D
CD ¼ ð1Þ
rv2 A
2L
CL ¼ ð2Þ
rv2 A
and
2S
CS ¼ ð3Þ
rv2 A
respectively, where r = 1.2 kg/m3 is air density, v is the
air speed, and A is the cross-sectional area of the ball
given by A = p 3 (0.11 m)2 = 0.038 m2.
Wind-tunnel experimental results
Figure 4 shows the drag coefficient for the five soccer
balls analyzed in this study. The drag coefficient for
balls B and E decreased more rapidly than for the other
balls. This could be because the dimpled texture of ball
B’s surface and the uniform squares of ball E move the
separation of the boundary layer to the back of the ball
faster than for the other balls, hastening the transition
from a laminar boundary layer to a turbulent one. For
4 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)

Figure 4. Drag coefficient versus air speed for five balls under investigation. Symbols represent actual data; lines between symbols
are merely to guide the eye. The 0° orientation is on the left and the 180° orientation is on the right.

Table 1. Critical speeds, critical Reynolds numbers, and corresponding drag coefficients at the critical speed for the five balls at the
two tested orientations.

Ball vc (m/s) at 0° Rec 3 1025 at 0° CD(vc) at 0° vc (m/s) at 180° Rec 3 1025 at 180° CD(vc) at 180°

A 18.8 2.63 0.113 17.9 2.50 0.122

B 18.8 2.58 0.128 17.9 2.44 0.136
C 17.8 2.39 0.124 17.8 2.38 0.119
D 18.8 2.53 0.112 18.8 2.53 0.131
E 16.8 2.29 0.143 17.9 2.43 0.157

ball speeds mainly associated with passes and long
kicks, the drag curve is in the critical and supercritical
regions with speeds between approximately 10 m/s
(Re’ 1.4 3 105) and 30 m/s (Re’ 4.3 3 105). Note that
the Reynolds number is defined as Re = vD/n, where v
is ball speed, D = 0.22 m is ball diameter, and n = 1.54
3 1025 m2/s is the kinematic viscosity at 24 °C.
Note that a 180° rotation of the balls in Figure 3 is
not a symmetric rotation. Such a rotation effectively
interchanges the pentagons and hexagons that border
the forward-facing hexagon. Such a rotation should
not, in principle, alter the drag force on ball. Figure 4
shows slightly different drag coefficients for the two
orientations. Rotating a ball by 180° is more compli-
cated than it may seem because the fitting mechanism
that ensures the ball is attached to the support rod must
be rotated as well. It is thus quite difficult to ensure a
perfect replication of the first experiment when a ball is
rotated for the second experiment.
The critical speed, vc, is the speed at which the drag
coefficient is at its minimum value.15 As air speed is
reduced, the drag coefficient rises precipitously in the
critical region. The transition from supercritical to sub-
critical represents a change in air flow about the ball
from turbulent to laminar. Critical speeds, correspond-
ing critical Reynolds numbers (Rec), and values of the
drag coefficient at the critical speed are all given in
Table 1.
Differences in Reynolds number at the same wind
speed are due to temperature differences. Experiments
were performed in the temperature range of 28 °C–
35 °C. Reynolds number is proportional to kinematic
viscosity, which increases with increasing tempera-
ture. Because drag coefficients could not be exactly
reproduced when balls were rotated 180°, the best
conclusions that may be drawn from Table 1 are that
ball E with its uniform squares had the largest drag
coefficient at the critical speed and ball B with its
dimpled pattern had the second largest drag coeffi-
cient at the critical speed. Figure 4 shows that ball D
with its hexagonal textures had the largest high-speed
(v . 32 m/s) drag coefficient; ball C with its triangu-
lar protrusions had the smallest high-speed drag coef-
ficient. Ball A with its waves of square protrusions
had a drag coefficient curve that changed the most
when rotated by 180°.
Figure 5 shows wind-tunnel results for the lift coeffi-
cient for the five balls with different surfaces at each of
the two tested orientations. The interchange of penta-
gons and hexagons when balls are rotated 180° leads to
lift coefficients that do not simply switch signs, as
would be the case if each panel was the same geometric
shape. All balls had roughly the same lift coefficient at
the top speed in the wind tunnel, but ball A’s lift coeffi-
cient was the largest magnitude for most speeds above
20 m/s.
Hong et al. 5

Figure 5. Lift coefficient versus air speed for five balls. Symbols represent actual data; lines between symbols are merely to guide
the eye. The 0° orientation is on the left and the 180° orientation is on the right.

Figure 6. Side coefficient versus air speed for five balls. Symbols represent actual data; lines between symbols are merely to guide
the eye. The 0° orientation is on the left and the 180° orientation is on the right.

Figure 6 shows the speed-dependent side coefficient
of the five balls under consideration for each orienta-
tion. Like the lift coefficient, a 180° ball rotation should
simply switch the sign of the side coefficient. Also like
the lift coefficient, such a switch is not exactly seen in
Figure 6, but the trend is visible. Balls A, B, and E
showed relatively large side coefficient magnitudes for
speeds larger than the critical speed. At the largest
wind-tunnel speed, ball D had the largest magnitude of
side coefficient. There was significant variation in side
force applied to the balls according to the ball type.
Because the lift and side coefficients originate from the
same physical phenomenon, namely, an asymmetric
separation of the boundary layer from the back of the
ball, rotation of a ball in the wind tunnel by 90° will
interchange lift and side coefficients (up to a sign, which
depends on the direction of rotation). All such a rota-
tion would do is interchange what is meant by sideways
and upward. The reason Figures 5 and 6 do not look
the same is because a 90° rotation of the balls shown in
Figure 3 does not lead to the same configuration shown
in Figure 3. Note the presence of seams coming from
the left and right points of the center-facing hexagons
in the photos shown in Figure 3. A 90° rotation of the
balls in those photos leads to the flat sides of the hexa-
gons being on the left and right sides, which means
there are no longer seams on the left and right sides.
Hexagons have rotational symmetry if the rotation is
60°, not 90°.
One may wonder why lift and side coefficients are
not zero for all speeds. The orientation of the hexagons
in Figure 3 suggests that if the balls are perfectly made
and perfectly aligned in the wind tunnel, there should
be no sideways asymmetric shedding of the boundary
layer. But perfect alignment in the wind tunnel and per-
fectly symmetric surface textures are both impossible to
attain. These results show that even slight variations
from symmetric wind-tunnel placement and symmetric
surface textures lead to nontrivial transverse aerody-
namic forces. Ball manufacturers should take heed of
the aforementioned result. No matter how well a ball is
made and how much effort is put into making a ball as
symmetric as possible for certain orientations, the like-
lihood of knuckle effect is high.
6 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)

Figure 7. Force variation in lift and side forces due to the wind speed.

Figure 8. Numerically calculated horizontal ranges for the five tested balls. Symbols are merely meant to guide the eye because
trajectories may be determined for any speed in the range of launch speeds (15–35 m/s). Balls were launched at 25° above the
horizontal in the computer code. The 0° orientation is on the left and the 180° orientation is on the right.

Figure 7 shows the graph of the force variation
(standard deviation (SD)) due to the increase in the
flow velocity on each ball for 10 s. First, the lift force
and side force acting on the ball are seen to vary greatly
depending on the type of ball. Furthermore, although
the force variation is different for different types of
balls, for ball B at flow velocity 30 m/s, the variation
exceeded 2.5 N in terms of both the lift and side forces,
showing a greater variation than that for the other
types of balls with an increase in flow velocity.
However, for ball D, the force variation was less than
1.5 N, showing a smaller variation than that for the
other balls. For example, in the case of the flow velo-
city at 30 m/s, the variation in the lift and side forces
was 2.6 and 2.6 N, respectively, for the B type ball and
1.0 and 1.5 N, respectively, for the D type ball.
Trajectories
Armed with all aerodynamic coefficients as functions of
speed for the five balls, methods developed elsewhere13
were employed to evaluate trajectories for any launch
condition within a speed range (15–35 m/s) that repre-
sents the majority of soccer kicks for which aerody-
namic forces play significant roles in the trajectories.
The aerodynamic coefficients are taken to be as they
appear in Figures 4–6, which means linear interpolation
is used between wind-tunnel data. Non-spin trajectories
were numerically determined for balls launched at 25°
above the horizontal with speeds ranging from 15 to
35 m/s. Data were collected for two ball orientations
and the ball orientation was assumed to remain fixed
during the flights in the model trajectories. By analyzing
non-spin trajectories, the focus is on balls which exhibit
knuckle effects.18 The authors’ previous work with non-
spinning ball trajectory19 provided insight regarding
examination of trajectory results for this study.
Figure 8 shows the horizontal range for the trajec-
tories. Because the surfaces of balls A and E lead to
larger magnitude lift coefficients at post-critical speeds
(see Figure 5), balls A and E showed the most influence
from nonzero lift coefficients. The ranges for balls A
and E were approximately 15 and 7.5 m different than
the ranges for balls B, C, and D.
Hong et al. 7

Figure 9. Numerically calculated lateral deflections as percentages of horizontal ranges for the five tested balls. Symbols are merely
meant to guide the eye because trajectories may be determined for any speed in the range of launch speeds (15–35 m/s). Balls were
launched at 25° above the horizontal in the computer code. The 0° orientation is on the left and the 180° orientation is on the right.

Figure 10. Numerically calculated effects on horizontal ranges for the five tested balls when the lift coefficient is set to zero.
Symbols are merely meant to guide the eye because trajectories may be determined for any speed in the range of launch speeds
(15–35 m/s). Balls were launched at 25° above the horizontal in our computer code. The 0° orientation is on the left and the 180°
orientation is on the right.

Figure 9 shows the fraction of the horizontal range
represented by the lateral deflection for each of the
numerically determined trajectories. Figure 6 explains
why balls D and E showed the most lateral deflection
as percentages of the range. For most post-critical
speeds, ball E showed a lateral deflection of 13%–18%.
Such large lateral deflections make goal keeper’s jobs
much harder when trying to stop non-spinning balls
from entering the goal. Figure 8 shows that if ball E is
launched at 30 m/s, it could travel at least 40 m. A 15%
lateral deflection amounts to 6 m.
Figure 10 shows how the horizontal range is chan-
ged when the lift coefficient is set to zero in the numeri-
cally determined trajectories. As suggested by Figure 8,
ranges for balls A and E showed the greatest depen-
dence on their lift coefficients. Ball A’s range may be
altered as much as 30% by its nonzero lift coefficient,
another effect caused by the protrusions on ball A. The
authors’ conclusions on how the surfaces of balls A
and E influence their trajectories require further testing
in future work that will focus on flow visualization
across the different surfaces.
Conclusion
In this study, the influence of the surface texture of the
soccer ball on its aerodynamics and flight characteris-
tics were examined by carrying out wind-tunnel experi-
ments on five geometrically identical 32-panel balls
having different surface textures. The results indicate
that the pattern on the surface of a soccer ball signifi-
cantly influences the ball’s trajectory. Balls A and E
with their pimpled protrusions and squares, respec-
tively, had surfaces that influenced numerically deter-
mined trajectories more than dimpled surfaces on the
other balls tested. Goal keepers will likely be challenged
8 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)
by ball trajectories with lateral deflections as large as
10%–20% of a ball’s range. Although these wind-
tunnel tests only examined one portion of a ball facing
the oncoming air, meaning the trajectory analyses
could only examine non-spinning balls of a single
orientation throughout flight, the authors have deter-
mined the effects of the lift and side forces on trajec-
tories. Selection of soccer ball surface type will greatly
influence trajectories of non-spinning balls in matches.
If event organizers are interested in minimizing erratic
flights of non-spinning balls, the initial recommenda-
tion is to employ balls with dimpled surface features,
instead of pimpled surface features. ‘‘Erratic’’ flights
could be interpreted as trajectories that are unpredict-
able from a player’s point of view, not trajectories that
are unpredictable from the physical forces on the ball.
Future work should assess the aerodynamics of spin-
ning balls to determine if the larger effects of protru-
sions are averaged out or if the spin enhances those
effects. That work will have to be compared with
recently published research20 on balls with both slow
and fast spins.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the two paper reviewers for their
excellent work in significantly improving the quality of
our paper.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Sungchan Hong https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0149-
5028
References
1. Goff JE, Asai T and Hong S. A comparison of Jabulani
and Brazuca non-spin aerodynamics. Proc IMechE,
Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 2014; 228:
188–194.
View publication stats
2. Hong S and Asai T. Effect of panel shape of soccer ball
on its flight characteristics. Sci Rep 2014; 4: 5068.
3. Goff JE, Hong S and Asai T. Aerodynamic and surface
comparisons between Telstar 18 and Brazuca. Proc
IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology.
Epub ahead of print 19 May 2018. DOI: 10.1177/
1754337118773214.
4. Alam F, Chowdhury H, Moria H, et al. Aerodynamics
of contemporary FIFA soccer balls. Procedia Engineer
2014; 13: 188–193.
5. Alam F, Chowdhury H, Stemmer M, et al. Effects of sur-
face structure on soccer ball aerodynamics. Procedia
Engineer 2012; 34: 146–151.
6. Asai T, Ito S, Seo K, et al. Characteristics of modern
soccer balls. Procedia Engineer 2012; 34: 122–127.
7. Asai T and Seo K. Aerodynamic drag of modern soccer
balls. SpringerPlus 2013; 2: 171.
8. Asai T, Seo K, Kobayashi O, et al. Fundamental aerody-
namics of the soccer ball. Sports Eng 2007; 10: 101–110.
9. Mizota T, Kurogi K, Ohya Y, et al. The strange flight
behaviour of slowly spinning soccer balls. Sci Rep 2013;
3: 1871.
10. Oggiano L and Sætran L. Aerodynamics of modern soc-
cer balls. Procedia Engineer 2010; 2: 2473–2479.
11. Mehta RD. Aerodynamics of sports balls. Annu Rev Fluid
Mech 1985; 17: 151–189.
12. Passmore M, Rogers D, Tuplin S, et al. The aerodynamic
performance of a range of FIFA-approved footballs.
Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technol-
ogy 2012; 226: 61–70.
13. Goff JE and Carré MJ. Trajectory analysis of a soccer
ball. Am J Phys 2009; 77: 1020–1027.
14. Hong S, Asai T and Seo K. Visualization of air flow
around soccer ball using a particle image velocimetry. Sci
Rep 2015; 5: 15108.
15. Achenbach E. The effects of surface roughness and tunnel
blockage on the flow past spheres. J Fluid Mech 1974; 61:
113–125.
16. Carré MJ and Barber S. A novel sports ball aerodynamics
analysis tool: soccer ball design. Sports Technol 2012; 3:
240–252.
17. Barber S and Carré MJ. The effect of surface geometry
on soccer ball trajectories. Sports Eng 2010; 13: 47–55.
18. Hong S, Chung C, Nakayama M, et al. Unsteady aerody-
namic force on a knuckleball in soccer. Procedia Engineer
2010; 2: 2455–2460.
19. Goff JE, Hobson CM, Asai T, et al. Wind-tunnel experi-
ments and trajectory analyses for five nonspinning soccer
balls. Procedia Engineer 2016; 147: 32–37.
20. Passmore MA, Tuplin S and Stawski A. The real-time
measurement of football aerodynamic loads under spin-
ning conditions. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineer-
ing and Technology 2017; 231: 262–274.